“First, people are attracted still to very strong colour combinations and to coherent composition - as Hoyland said, you can’t end up with chaos. Second, the subject of art remains important. The subject doesn’t have to be literally present - Clare Woods paints about decay and fear, Gillian Ayres about the exhilaration of being alive. But it may be literal: Kiefer’s art deals directly with Germany’s modern history and the possibility of imminent environmental collapse; Auerbach describes modern urban living, with its confusions and collisions. If there isn’t something in the subject to get your teeth into - if it’s all floral arrangements or beach scenes - the public reaction will be tepid. Third, and perhaps most important, art must look somehow fresh, novel, of the now and not of the then. If it does, the “now” can last, however. Go to see an exhibition of Rauschenberg or Jackson Pollock paintings from the 1950s and their freshness bursts from the walls. People don’t want imitations of the past, certainly if they’re spending good money on going to an exhibition. Finally, modern taste seems to prefer paintings that look like paintings. Surrounded by a glossy sheen of digital imagery - on your tablet, your computer, iPhone or television screen- you don’t want cold, glassy, smooth surfaces from living paintings. You want the marks to be visible, the hand and the eye to be still somehow present. You want to live in there here and the now.”
